Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 01/09/2008, at 10:32 AM, David Hobby wrote: No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. They're not children yet! Children have *been born*. Late-term abortion kills the unborn at a time when they're likely to survive (except in cases where the abortion is because they won't and they'll probably kill the mother in the process), and is something I strongly oppose (because adoption is an option for delivered healthy babies). But talking about a 12 week embryo as if it has the same status as a 5 year old is both unhelpful and dishonest. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. No it's not arbitrary at all. It is the point at which it becomes an independent being, which is just as important a milestone as fertilisation, the first cell division, implantation, blastulation, the start of the heart beat, the start of brain activity, the opening of the eyes, or the achieving of full self-awareness. (My wife says it's not fully human until it can do its own laundry... I'm not sure she's helping...). If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). If you're talking about abortion, yes. If you're talking about personhood, it makes no sense at all. There's a grey area between implantation and birth. I think that if an abortion is to be carried out it should be as early as possible, and certainly before measurable brain activity starts (which is 22 - 24 weeks). After all, we define the end of human life by the end of brain activity. Why not define the start of human life by the same criterion? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 31, 2008, at 8:47 PM, William T Goodall wrote: So does celibacy. So not breeding as fruitfully as possible is murdering children? I think that would be a fairly extreme interpretation. However .. there's a lot to be said against the logic of unilaterally equating terminating a pregnancy with murder, especially during the part of gestation when the zygote or fetus cannot possibly be expected to be viable outside the uterus. The fertilized egg looking around for a place to implant* may be a potential life, but it has no viability outside the environment that supports its development until it has divided, differentiated, and matured to the point where it would be viable as a premature infant .. and even then survival is questionable and involves fairly heroic life support and monitoring in a NICU incubator for weeks at least. Viability seems to me to be the best measure of the dividing line between potential human life and actual human life, and to me, a pregnancy that has not actually reached the stage where the fetus is viable as an infant (the grey area being the span between earliest possible viability with heroic life support and the boundary between premature and normal term) should be legally terminable if the mother chooses to do so. (Many states' existing laws on abortion follow roughly this rule, incidentally, and most ban or severely restrict third-trimester abortions, which I'm comfortable with .. it's not like 6 months is any kind of an unreasonable deadline for the decision.) And, IMHO, that should *only* be the mother's decision, and I feel it's reasonable to expect factors like her own personal health (physical and mental), and the number of children she already has, to weigh into that decision. There are very serious issues of manipulative social control in this debate that aren't often discussed (and, when they are, are often dismissed as anti-religious propaganda), but are critical to the debate, and I feel that placing that choice in the hands of the person most impacted by carrying a pregnancy to term, *especially now as we're approaching the 7 billion mark*, best addresses those issues. (*Speaking of implantation, treating fertilization as the standard of the beginning of life would legally define treating ectopic pregnancies as abortion. Fertilized eggs don't always implant in the uterus, and when they implant somewhere else, the consequences can be fairly serious for obvious reasons. It's theoretically possible for an ectopic pregnancy to carry to term, but it would be very dangerous to attempt, and I wouldn't dare suggest forcing a woman to do that. But this is the kind of insanity that we get into if we accept the notion of an egg that's just been fertilized as a baby that would be murdered if it wasn't allowed to implant wherever it landed.) Grotesque oppression isn't okay just because it's been institutionalized. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Sep 1, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: Late-term abortion kills the unborn at a time when they're likely to survive (except in cases where the abortion is because they won't and they'll probably kill the mother in the process), and is something I strongly oppose (because adoption is an option for delivered healthy babies). But talking about a 12 week embryo as if it has the same status as a 5 year old is both unhelpful and dishonest. I would go a bit further and call it deliberately disingenuous, but maybe that's just me .. I believe ... that if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade. And try to find somebody who's life gives them vodka, and have a party. -- Ron White ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
(Sorry about the titles. I just replied about Sarah Palin in the Honest Terminology thread, and in the Sarah Palin thread, I'm talking about honest terminology.) William T Goodall wrote: On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote: ... William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it. (To use honest terminology.) You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology. ... William-- No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). ---David common sense and abortion, together in one sentence, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). So a terrorist breaks into a fertility clinic and steals a 1000 frozen zygotes. Then they make a demand - release our compatriots from jail or we'll kill a thousand American children! LOL Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: (Sorry about the titles. I just replied about Sarah Palin in the Honest Terminology thread, and in the Sarah Palin thread, I'm talking about honest terminology.) William T Goodall wrote: On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote: ... William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it. (To use honest terminology.) You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology. ... William-- No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. No it doesn't. Children have been born. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). Our culture starts measuring age from birth, not conception. I believe some cultures do measure age from conception but not ours. If you start counting zygotes as children then IUDs and morning after pills are infanticide. That's just wackjob wingnut daft. Crazy Talk Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: ... William-- No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. No it doesn't. Children have been born. And being born makes a big difference? Why? There's a continuum. It starts at conception, or first cell division, or whatever. (I guess you want to say at implantation?) It goes up to around the onset of puberty. Beings are called children in most of that continuum. So it is reasonable to take the word children, and use it to describe beings from conception through puberty. Do you have a better term? Our culture starts measuring age from birth, not conception. I believe some cultures do measure age from conception but not ours. For the purposes of this discussion, it makes more sense to start at conception. Unlike some people, I think it would help to have some clarity. If you start counting zygotes as children then IUDs and morning after pills are infanticide. That's just wackjob wingnut daft. Well, they are preventing things from living. It's a big leap to claim that's the same as killing, and another to proclaim that whatever was killed was an infant. I suggest that it's more effective to target the holes in an opposing argument, rather than to just fight blindly. ---David So why do people say unborn child? Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 1 Sep 2008, at 02:32, David Hobby wrote: William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: ... If you start counting zygotes as children then IUDs and morning after pills are infanticide. That's just wackjob wingnut daft. Well, they are preventing things from living. So does celibacy. So not breeding as fruitfully as possible is murdering children? It's a big leap to claim that's the same as killing, and another to proclaim that whatever was killed was an infant. I suggest that it's more effective to target the holes in an opposing argument, rather than to just fight blindly. ---David So why do people say unborn child? Maru. Because they have an agenda. 1984 Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
At 08:16 PM Sunday 8/31/2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). So a terrorist breaks into a fertility clinic and steals a 1000 frozen zygotes. Then they make a demand - release our compatriots from jail or we'll kill a thousand American children! Or as in the relatively recent (last season?) Law Order episode where some of the frozen embryos had been put into storage by a couple before she was deployed to Iraq in case something happened to her there, and she was KIA and so her husband shot and killed the one who had stolen them because that act of holding them hostage to make some kind of protest point destroyed his chance of raising their children? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote: William T Goodall wrote: Sarah Palin ... Vice President ... She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it. (To use honest terminology.) You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology. Every Sperm is Sacred Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 03:54, William T Goodall wrote: She's a crazy person. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. It reads like she's trying to be politically correct as not to offend either camp: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be, she said. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 31/08/2008, at 12:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. That's the current tactic from the creationists trying to get round the various court rulings. Teach the controversy and Teach both sides. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. If you support teaching both sides then you're a creationist. It's a code word. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. People could use that skill in on-line discussions! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 16:19, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Vigilance Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. I agree, not is science class, and I did specifically say that it shouldn't be taught as an equal alternative. Creationism should be taught from an historical perspective. It played a significant part in history, religion and society - but your right, that debate isn't appropriate in science class. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. You forgot to mention the other viable alternative to evolution: the Flying Spaghetti Monster :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other side, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Much more than that. The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. For many years now, I have believed that this is one of the ways in which the Internet is shaping the long-term future. Despite the flame wars, gossip and general nonsense that happens in on-line communities, I do believe that many people are rediscovering the value of argument, the power of diverse viewpoints in problem-solving. This is the stuff that stimulates creativity, I believe -- creativity which, even if limited to a minority, can have a profound positive impact on all. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 17:10, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other side, I think I side with the creationists. Why take sides? Peanut gallery Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On 30 Aug 2008, at 17:13, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Much more than that. The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. And there are people who know that they will lose a reasonable debate and therefore deliberately sabotage reasonable debate by using lies and illogic and any other dirty tricks they can come up with instead of reasonable debate. Creationists are such a group. Liars Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. It reads like she's trying to be politically correct as not to offend either camp: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be, she said. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Except that teach the controversy, i.e. treating creationism as a competing scientific theority to evolution, is a stated (and documented) tactic of the intelligent design movement, specifically as a means of positioning creationism as a legitimate scientific theory. IMHO, even *admitting* creation into a classroom science discussion is already losing the battle. Creationism is religious doctrine dressed up as pseudoscience, and creation science is a pseudoscientific rationalization of creationism based on flawed and outdated scientific understanding and teaching resources, and intelligent design is a creative rebranding of creation science with some superficial wording changes (and this is documented in the Kitzmiller v Dover case) to make it sound less religious and more scientific. It's not science, and dressing it up in scientific-sounding language doesn't change that. (It *does* make it *look* like science to people who don't understand what science *is* or how it works .. to them, creation science and evolution *do indeed* sound like competing theories of roughly equal merit, and they *do indeed* see the illusion of a choice between the two, with supernatural consequences.) Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. I'd say it's quite possible to build an entire course curriculum around the study of and comparisons between creation myths. And it would definitely be an interesting course. (Especially for the fundamentalists who want creationism taught in public schools, although they would almost certainly not like teaching creationism in classes where the competition with other belief systems is compeltely legitimate .. :D ) Giving kickbacks to the wealthy isn't creating wealth, it's just giving kickbacks to the wealthy. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: And there are people who know that they will lose a reasonable debate and therefore deliberately sabotage reasonable debate by using lies and illogic and any other dirty tricks they can come up with instead of reasonable debate. I hope you can deal with the fact that I pretty much agree, though I generally am wary of generalizations. When people try to use science to defend their religious beliefs, the science almost inevitably is poor. For me, faith has to do with the inexplicable and uncontrollable. I guess I'm particularly dismayed when people regard a scientific explanation -- evolution is the prime example -- as a threat to their faith. That makes zero sense to me. Now that I think of it, there's sort of an opposite kind of childish thinking that dismays me. I was at a friend's funeral last week and his town's mayor said something like, God must have needed another angel and he wanted one of the best. Ack! When I hear people say stuff like that, William, I can totally understand why you and others find religion offensive. The idea that a Supreme Being caused a motorcycle to kill my friend because He needed an angel... that's insane. My wife called it spiritual immaturity. She's quicker than I am to find compassion. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Considering the fact that McCain just announced his VP running mate today, it's interesting that there are domain names associating Sarah Palin with Vice President registered back in June 2008. The domain name VicePresidentSarahPalin.com was registered on June 14, 2008. Nothing illegal or underhanded about that, just interesting that people knew or suspected more than two months ago. Gary Nunn or the right to lifers started lobbying for her back then... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: or the right to lifers started lobbying for her back then... jon Not entirely inconceivable, that. She doesn't have the somewhat negative name recognition that Lieberman or Huckabee have, which (at least temporarily) dodges some of the effects of choosing a fundamentalist running mate, so it's entirely possible that she was the only candidate he could choose who wouldn't immediately scare off more moderate voters, but at the same time wouldn't alienate a very large fund-raising base of hardcore fundamentalists whose support he really needs if he wants to have any real chance of winning the general election. This language proposes a new doctrine for the use of force, that we use force whenever we see an injustice that we want to correct. Like Mother Teresa with first strike capability. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Considering the fact that McCain just announced his VP running mate today, it's interesting that there are domain names associating Sarah Palin with Vice President registered back in June 2008. The domain name VicePresidentSarahPalin.com was registered on June 14, 2008. Nothing illegal or underhanded about that, just interesting that people knew or suspected more than two months ago. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 02:36, Gary Nunn wrote: Considering the fact that McCain just announced his VP running mate today, it's interesting that there are domain names associating Sarah Palin with Vice President registered back in June 2008. The domain name VicePresidentSarahPalin.com was registered on June 14, 2008. Nothing illegal or underhanded about that, just interesting that people knew or suspected more than two months ago. She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. Sick Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: Sarah Palin ... Vice President ... She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. (To use honest terminology.) Thank you for bringing this dilemma into focus. ---David Dying machines made of meat, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
